[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100830183843.GB2444@shell>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:38:43 -0400
From: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
jblunck@...e.de, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] hybrid union filesystem prototype
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:35:02PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:47:39 +0200
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > > Changes to underlying filesystems
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > For now I refuse to even think about what happens in this case.
> >
> > The easiest way out of this mess might simply be to enforce exclusive
> > modification to the underlying filesystems on a local level, same as
> > the union mount strategy. For NFS and other remote filesystems we
> > either
> >
> > a) add some way to enforce it,
> > b) live with the consequences if not enforced on the system level, or
> > c) disallow them to be part of the union.
> >
>
> I actually think that your approach can work quite will with either the
> upper or lower changing independently. Certainly it can produce some odd
> situations, but even NFS can do that (though maybe not quite so odd).
I'm very curious about your thoughts on how to handle the lower layer
changing. Al Viro's comments:
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0802.0/0839.html
Do you see something we're missing?
-VAL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists